Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The present suit for recovery of money has been filed by the aforesaid plaintiff against the aforementioned defendant interalia making a prayer for passing a decree for recovery of Rs.7,29,754/­ (Rs. Seven Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Four Only) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realization in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Cost of the suit is also demanded. M/s Paragon Cable India Vs. M/s Indian Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. (Suit No.986/08) Page No. 1 of pages 7

2. As per plaint, plaintiff is a Partnership Firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms and deals in the business of wires and cables and defendant is an old customer of the plaintiff. It was further averred that Sh. Vikas Nagpal, one of its registered partner, is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and is competent to sign, verify and institute the present suit. The defendant during its course of business with plaintiff, placed order for purchase of wires and cables at Delhi and accordingly plaintiff supplied the same as per specifications, size and quantity mentioned in the purchase order at the agreed price against bills. The terms and conditions of sale are printed on the foot note of the bills, which were agreed by the defendant. The plaintiff during the regular course of its business, maintained the books of accounts and as per the said books of accounts there was an outstanding balance of Rs.4,78,554/­ as on 31.03.2006 due against the defendant to the plaintiff. It was also averred that on the request of defendant, the plaintiff dispatched the goods to defendant through Goyal's Delhi M.P. Roadlines, 3798, Sarai Phoos, Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054, which were duly received by the defendant. The defendant lastly purchased the goods from the plaintiff vide Bill No.82 dated 23.05.2005 for Rs.74,338/­ and as per terms and conditions printed on the foot note of the bills and agreed by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest @ 18% p.a. on the unpaid bills amount. Further, the plaintiff had been demanding the outstanding balance due against the defendant from the defendant from time to time. The defendant made part payments but failed and neglected to clear the outstanding amount. The plaintiff is entitled to recover and defendant is liable M/s Paragon Cable India Vs. M/s Indian Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. (Suit No.986/08) Page No. 2 of pages 7 to pay a sum of Rs.7,29,754/­ as per details given below:­

3. Defendant contested the suit by filing its reply, in which it took certain preliminary objections like that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit; plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; the suit is bad for non­joinder and mis­joinder of necessary parties; no proper court fee has been paid on the plaint; suit is bad as plaintiff is not registered in accordance M/s Paragon Cable India Vs. M/s Indian Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. (Suit No.986/08) Page No. 3 of pages 7 with law and Mr. Nagpal is not the parter of said plaintiff firm and he has not been authorized to file a suit against the defendant; suit is barred by limitation.

On merits side, it is denied that plaintiff is a registered partnership firm, or that Sh. Vikas Nagpal is one of its registered partners. It is also denied that the plaintiff supplied the wires and cables as per specifications, size, quantity, quality mentioned in the purchase order at the agreed price or that the terms and conditions of sale printed on the footnote of the bills were agreed by the defendant. The plaintiff has not sent the goods according to the agreement between the parties. It is already mentioned in the agreement that delivery time is the essential part of this order but plaintiff failed to dispatch the goods before 15 March, 2005 and therefore, violated the terms and conditions of agreement. The plaintiff himself broke the contract. The cables sent by the petitioner is highly defective and defendant is not responsible for defective cable supplied by the plaintiff and not bound to make the payment of defective cable supplied by the plaintiff. The Armorued Aluminium Cables of size 200 sq. mm 3.5 core supplied by the plaintiff has manufacturing defect and that cable got burst in without load condition on under ground position. The defendant sent a letter dated 22.12.2005 to the plaintiff complaining about the manufacturing defect in the cable supplied by the plaintiff and requested to send the engineer to inspect and to replace the cable but no needful was done by the plaintiff and no engineer was sent by the plaintiff to inspect the same and due to this wrong act of the plaintiff, defendant and his business suffered badly and production was not started due to faulty cable supplied by the defendant. In terms of the conditions agreed by the plaintiff, there was M/s Paragon Cable India Vs. M/s Indian Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. (Suit No.986/08) Page No. 4 of pages 7 clause regarding Guarantee that Guarantee: 18 months from the date of receipt of material at our site. According to this clause the defective material was under guarantee period and plaintiff has liability to replace the material but no replacement of material was done by the plaintiff after knowing the condition of the above said defective material. It is denied that plaintiff maintained books of accounts in its regular course of business in accordance with law and followed accounting procedure prescribed by law. It is denied that any outstanding balance of Rs.4,78,554/­ was due as on 31.03.2006 due against the defendant to the plaintiff or that plaintiff is entitled to recover any kind of interest on the unpaid bills amount. It is stated that the defendant had made full payments from time to time and now no amount is due against the defendant. It is also denied that the defendant has been withholding the amount of Rs.7,29,754/­ with malafide and dishonest intention or that the defendant had not paid the same despite of repeated demands of plaintiff from time to time.